Strategies for Dissenting Scientists

Abstract. Those who challenge conventional views or
vested interests in science are likely to encounter difficulties.
A scientific dissenter should first of all realize that science
is a system of power as well as knowledge, in which interest
groups play a key role and insiders have an extra advantage.
Dissenters are likely to be ignored or dismissed. they gain some
recognition or outside support, they may be attacked In the face
of such obstacles, there are several strategies, including mimicking
science, aiming at lower status outlets, enlisting patrons, seeking
a different audience, exposing suppression of dissent, and building
a social movement.

Science is normally presented to the public as an enterprise
based on skepticism and openness to new ideas, in which evidence
and argumentation are examined on their own merits. Trusting newcomers
who present views that conflict with standard ideas may thus expect
that their work will be given a prompt, fair, and incisive analysis,
being accepted if it passes scrutiny and being given detailed
reasons if not. When, instead, their work is ignored, ridiculed,
or rejected without explanation, they assume that there has been
some sort of mistake, and often begin a search to find the "right
person"-someone who fits the stereotype of the open-minded
scientist. This can be a long search!

Certain sorts of innovation are welcome in science, when they
fall within established frameworks and do not threaten vested
interests. But aside from this sort of routine innovation, science
has many similarities to systems of dogma. Dissenters are not
welcome. They are ignored, rejected, and sometimes attacked. To
have their ideas examined fairly, it is wishful thinking to rely
on the normal operation of the scientific reception system. To
have a decent chance, dissenters need to develop a strategy. They
need to understand the way science actually operates, to work
out their goals, and then to formulate a plan to move towards
those goals, taking into account likely obstacles and sources
of support. The following sections cover, in turn, the dynamics
of the scientific community, the problems faced by challengers,
likely responses to dissenters, and strategies.

My perspective on dissent in science-which in a single article
can only be outlined rather than fully justified-is based on many
years' experience as a scientist and social scientist both in
presenting dissenting ideas as well as studying their reception.
This includes debates over supersonic transport aircraft, nuclear
power, fluoridation, nuclear winter, pesticides, and the origin
of AIDS, with a special focus on the treatment of dissenters (e.g.
Martin, 1979, 1981, 1986, 1991, 1996, 1997; Martin et al., 1986).
Having given advice to many challengers, it is my perception that
there is a great need to better understand the role of power in
science, to be aware of the likely responses to dissenters, and
to consciously examine and try out strategies.

The Dynamics of the Scientific Community

There are various ways to understand the way the scientific
community operates, including as a search for truth, a puzzle-solving
enterprise within paradigms (Kuhn, 1970), and a social enterprise
in which scientists seek to enroll others, both humans and objects,
to their own cause (Latour, 1987). To understand the response
to dissenters, though, it is more useful to think of the scientific
community in terms of "interests" (Barnes, 1977). Company
owners have an interest in making a profit and scientists have
an interest in publishing their papers and being recognized. "Interests"
can be thought of in terms of a stake in money, power, status,
privilege, or other advantages.

To talk of interests is to focus on the social organization
of science. Often, when thinking about "science," people
think of scientific knowledge, which is conceived of as some sort
of essence above and beyond human interests. It is useful to remember
that scientific knowledge is created by humans and, as a result,
is inevitably shaped by human concerns (Watson, 1938). By understanding
the social dynamics of the scientific community, it is possible
to gain insight into processes that influence the direction, pace,
and content of scientific knowledge. The study of the scientific
community then leads back to interests.

Some types of interests are corporate, government, bureaucratic,
professional, career, and psychological. In each case they can
exert strong pressures on the direction of research and shape
the response to challengers. Note that interests influence science
without the necessity of conscious bias, since people's world
views are shaped by interests.

Corporations fund a large amount of research, naturally enough
the sorts of research that are likely to lead to corporate advantage.
A large corporation can be considered to have a "vested interest"
in certain types of research and certain results, because it has
used these to build a position of power which it wishes to maintain.
A pharmaceutical company, for example, has a strong interest in
its best-selling drugs. It will fund research into drugs that
it can patent and sell, but not into nonpatentable substances.
It has an interest in opposing treatments that do not rely on
drugs at all (Abraham, 1995).

Governments are much like large corporations, funding research
that serves their interests. The military, a key part of the governmental
apparatus, funds lots of research into weapons but very little
into methods of nonviolent struggle such as strikes, boycotts,
rallies, and non-cooperation. The influence of governments and
corporations on the direction and content of scientific research
is considerable (Boffey, 1975; Dickson, 1984; Primack & von
Hippel, 1974).

Governments, corporations and other large organizations are
typically structured as bureaucracies, with a hierarchy and division
of labour. Bureaucratic elites resist challenges to their power
and privilege even when changes would benefit the organization
as a whole. For example, military innovations such as accurate
naval gunnery and the machine gun were resisted by military commanders
for decades because they upset normal organizational arrangements.
Scientific research in corporations, governments, and universities
is organized bureaucratically, to some extent. Top scientific
administrators have a vested interest in maintaining their power
(Blissett, 1972; Elias, Martins, & Whitley, 1982; Rahman,
1972).

Professions such as medicine and law can be understood as systems
for maintaining control over an occupation, which includes controlling
working conditions and entry to the field. Professions have a
vested interest in this control, which sometimes is protected
by laws preventing nonprofessionals from practicing (Collins,
1979; Larson, 1977).

Individual scientists have interests in their own careers,
for example in publishing papers, gaining jobs and promotions,
and winning honors. They can also develop a psychological interest
in particular theories and methods. If a challenger comes along
with a simple alternative to the theory on which they have built
their careers, most scientists are not likely to be receptive,
since their status will be undermined and their lifelong commitment
apparently wasted (Mitroff, 1974).

These different interests are often interconnected. Governments
fund research by corporations and universities. Corporations fund
research by medical professionals. Individual scientists build
up careers in government or corporate labs.

The interests model of science is quite a contrast to the traditional
model of a search for truth which is guided by norms such as skepticism,
universality, and communality. The usefulness of these norms for
describing science has been questioned (Mulkay, 1976). Indeed,
science is possibly just as well described by "counternorms"
such as emotional commitment and organized dogmatism (Mitroff,
1974). Using the interests model, we would expect the scientific
community to respond to the most salient interests.

For example, because certain chemical companies make a lot
of money selling pesticides, they heavily fund research into pesticides,
do not fund much research into alternatives to pesticides, and
are threatened by adverse findings about pesticides. Just as important
as these direct links between interests and research are indirect
influences. Priorities for seemingly independent fields can be
influenced by chemical company interests.

Another important interest is that of the scientific community
as a whole in the status of science as a superior method of gaining
knowledge. Scientific experts are given greater credibility because
they are seen as having special access to truth about the world.
Scientific truths are not supposed to be tainted by interests,
which is why scientific knowledge is portrayed as rising above
the limitations of the system that created it.

Interests are an influence on the way science proceeds, but
do not determine it. There is always some scope for resistance.

Incidentally, within the social studies of science, analysis
of interests has become quite unfashionable. Perhaps this is related
to the field becoming more career oriented and hence less helpful
to those wanting to expose vested interests!

Problems Faced by Challengers

If there are strong interests behind a particular position
or theory, then the task of challengers is difficult. This difficulty
is aggravated if challengers are outsiders who don't "play
the game." If you are a talented scientist with a good track
record, working at an elite institution, and write a conventional
looking scientific paper-but with challenging ideas-there may
be difficulties enough. For anyone else, it is much tougher.

If you are from a low status institution, that is a big disadvantage
(Peters & Ceci, 1982). It is even worse to have no institution
at all and to write from a home address. It is also a disadvantage
to be unknown in the field, to have no prior publications, to
be a female, to be too young or too old, or to be from a country
with low scientific status.

Although the rhetoric about science is that it is ideas that
count, not who expresses them, in practice ideas are commonly
judged by their source. Ideas are given much more credibility
if they come from a respected source. Outsiders have an uphill
battle.

Just as important is presenting one's ideas in the expected
way. A paper, to be recognized as scientific, must conform to
the standard mold. This varies from field to field, but usually
means a restrained, impersonal style, suitable references to earlier
work, and use of jargon appropriate to the topic, all in a concise
package that is similar to other writings in the field. Anyone
who writes about their own personal discovery, not mentioning
prior work, and writes for a general audience, has little chance
of being published in a scientific journal even if the ideas are
conventional and would be publishable if in standard form. Outsiders
sometimes betray their ignorance of the usual style by using ALL
CAPITALS and making bold claims.

Once again, rhetoric about science might suggest that contributions
should be judged on their content rather than their appearance,
but the reality is otherwise. Learning the standard style usually
occurs during the conventional career route involving years of
formal study and apprenticeship, plus working in a specialty to
become familiar with prior work. Indeed, without being an active
player in the field, it may be impossible to keep up, since this
requires having access to the latest preprints, attending major
conferences, or knowing key people. Furthermore, without coming
through conventional channels, it is often impossible to gain
access to equipment needed to do the most advanced work in the
field.

Arguably, one reason that science is so successful is that
it is a very conservative and insular operation. By concentrating
enormous resources on solving the puzzles that are on the immediate
frontier, scientists are able to make steady advances and occasional
breakthroughs. (Because of the role of funding and paradigms,
this tends to be in areas that are useful to powerful interests.)
The cost of this focus on current puzzles is a neglect of foundational
questions, anomalies, and unconventional ideas.

Typical working scientists have a hard time keeping up with
conventional research in their specialty. There are experiments
to be done, grant applications to write, papers to be written,
seminars and conferences to attend, and perhaps teaching. Research
is very competitive. Delay may mean losing out to others in the
field. It may mean loss of a publication, a job, a promotion,
perhaps a discovery. In this context, many scientists do not want
to "waste" their time looking at someone else's claim
to have made a breakthrough, unless it is a top person in the
field. What do they have to gain by spending time helping an outsider?
Most likely, the alleged discovery will turn out to be pointless
or wrong from the standard point of view. If the outsider has
made a genuine discovery, that means the outsider would win rewards
at the expense of those already in the field who have invested
years of effort in the conventional ideas.

Responses

A person who challenges the conventional wisdom is likely first
to be ignored, then dismissed and finally, if these responses
are inadequate, attacked. The first stage is being ignored. When
an outsider sends a paper to established scientists, for example,
many will not bother to reply. When an entire dissident field
establishes its own publications, it may be ignored by the mainstream.

Dismissal is the most common response when seeking formal recognition
in orthodox channels. A paper sent to a top journal may be rejected
without being sent to referees. Editors often perform a screening
function, deciding what is credible enough to warrant serious
consideration. Editors can also affect the likelihood of acceptance
by their selection of referees.

Sometimes, though, dissidents cannot be silenced by ignoring
and rejecting them. They may develop their own constituency or
gain publicity. For example, non-scientists who point out the healing
power of herbs, based on their own observations, are usually ignored
by medical researchers. Some researchers carry out careful studies
of herbs and seek publication; they are likely to encounter difficulties
or, if their work is published, be ignored by the mainstream.
However, there is a thriving alternative health movement which
is very receptive to any findings about the benefits of herbs.
This poses a threat to corporations, governments, and scientists
with a stake in the conventional approach based on synthetic drugs.
At this stage, one possibility is attack.

A scientist can be attacked in various ways, including ostracism,
petty harassment, excessive scrutiny, blocking of publications,
denial of jobs or tenure, blocking access to research facilities,
withdrawal of research grants, threats, punitive transfers, formal
reprimands, demotion, spreading of rumors, deregistration, dismissal,
and blacklisting, and threats of any of these. There are numerous
documented cases in various fields. For example, many scientists
pursuing research critical of pesticides or proposing alternatives
to pesticides have come under attack, for example having grants
removed or being threatened with dismissal (Martin, 1996; van
den Bosch, 1978). Dentists critical of fluoridation have been
threatened with deregistration (Martin, 1991; Waldbott, 1965).
Government scientists critical of nuclear power have lost their
staff and been transferred as a form of harassment (Freeman, 1981;
Martin, 1986). Parapsychologists have encountered difficulties
in their careers (Hess, 1992).

Dr John Coulter, a scientist at the Institute of Medical and
Veterinary Science in Adelaide, South Australia, spoke out about
various environmental and health issues. After he commented about
hazards of pesticides in a talk, the pesticide manufacturer wrote
a letter of complaint to the director of the Institute. After
Coulter did a study of the mutagenic potential of a sterilising
agent used at the Institute and released his results to the workers,
he was dismissed (Martin et al., 1986).

Dr George Waldbott, a prominent allergist and author of hundreds
of scientific papers, was the leading US opponent of fluoridation
from the mid 1950s through the 1970s. Waldbott was visited by
a German profluoridationist who misrepresented his intentions,
gained access to Waldbott's files and then wrote a critical account
Waldbott's methods. This misleading account later appeared in
a dossier on opponents of fluoridation compiled by the American
Dental Association and was used to undermine Waldbott wherever
he appeared (Waldbott, 1965).

The actual cases that are publicized are the tip of the proverbial
iceberg, for several reasons. Many dissenters do not make an issue
of attacks, preferring to keep a low profile and continue their
careers. Also, only some types of attacks are easy to document,
such as reprimands and dismissals. It is very difficult to prove
that failure to get a job or grant is due to discrimination.

Attacks on dissidents are never admitted as such. They are
always justified as being due to inadequacies on the part of the
dissident, such as low quality work or inappropriate behavior.
To determine whether actions against someone are justifiable,
it is useful to use the "double standard test." Is the
same action taken against everyone with the same level of performance?
Or is the person who is challenging conventional wisdom harassed
or reprimanded, while others with similar performance are unaffected?

Another useful test is to ask whether the response is in line
with normal scientific behavior. If a scientist writes a challenging
paper, it should be considered quite legitimate for someone to
call or write to the scientist questioning the method or results
or complaining about bias. This is a process of engagement and
dialog, and does not jeopardize the scientist's ability to continue
research. Even strong language should be tolerated if it is directly
to the scientist or published in a journal where there is a timely
opportunity to reply. On the other hand, when a critic threatens
a law suit or writes to the scientist's boss or institution making
a complaint, this is obviously an attempt to intimidate or hinder
the scientist's work or career. The "call to the boss"
is very common and is an excellent indicator that a response is
an attempt to suppress dissent rather than engage in dialog.

Attacks are much the same whether they are made against scientists
presenting challenging ideas, against whistle blowers who speak
out about scientific fraud or corporate corruption, or against
scapegoats who become targets for whatever reason. Most scientists
are completely unprepared for attacks. They do not realize that
science can be a ruthless power play in which the most underhanded
methods may be used against those who challenge vested interests.
They believe, incorrectly, that formal channels, such as grievance
procedures, professional associations, and courts, provide reliable
avenues for justice, when actually they are strongly weighted
in favor of those with more money and power. In order to survive
and thrive as a challenger, it is necessary to understand the
operations of power as well as knowledge. Most of all, it is important
to work out a strategy.

Strategies

Here are some ways of trying to be treated seriously in the
face of hostile interests. There is no single best strategy; each
has advantages and disadvantages. These options each assume some
recognition that success is very unlikely by simply expecting
that one's work will be treated without any bias.

Mimic orthodox science

Since mainstream scientists expect contributions to be in a
certain standard format, then writing articles in this format
may increase chances of success. Since submissions from institutional
addresses are usually treated more seriously than those from home
addresses, it may be useful to set up an institute even if it
is only one person! Alternatively, it might be possible to obtain
an honorary position at an established institution, such as a
university. There are a few open-minded departments that may be
willing to provide a haven for dissenters.

As well as the superficial appearance of being orthodox, it
may also be useful to carry out research in what is said to be
the orthodox manner, for example using double-blind randomized
trials. Parapsychological research has followed this path, and
as a result is carried out much more "scientifically"
than most orthodox science.

Sometimes this is not enough: the ideas are too threatening
even when they come from the most reputable scientists from prestigious
institutions, and carried out using all the methods claimed to
be required of proper scientific research. In this case, it can
be useful to set up specialist scientific journals, with the highest
standards, to give credibility to the field, and provide a focal
point for its workers. Parapsychological journals fulfill this
function.

The more able a field is to do research and produce results
that looks like conventional science, the more appropriate is
the strategy of mimicking science: eventually the mimic will be
taken for-and be-the real thing. A disadvantage is that the process
of squeezing into the scientific mold may exclude some of the
most exciting and provocative aspects of the field. Furthermore,
if hostile vested interests are powerful, the dissenters may not
be accepted no matter how much they replicate the scientific model.

Aim at lower status outlets

If it is impossible to gain acceptance in top journals and
conferences, it may be possible to get a hearing in less prestigious
outlets. There are thousands of journals and all sorts of conferences,
of all different styles, orientations, and statuses. By picking
an outlet that is less resistant to unorthodox ideas, it may be
possible to gain an audience. Perhaps, from these beginnings,
some people in the field will provide comment, critique, or support.
This may provide the basis for building a better argument and
gaining wider credibility. There are even some journals that specialize
in work challenging orthodoxy, such as Speculations in Science
and Technology and Medical Hypotheses.

There is no dishonor in publishing in lower status outlets.
After all, most scientists go through their entire careers never
publishing in the leading journals in their fields. It makes sense
to publish somewhere rather than nowhere. On the other hand, it
is easier for challenges to be ignored when they only appear in
lower status outlets.

In the case of fluoridation, critics have long had the greatest
difficulty in publishing in mainstream dental journals. Australian
dental researcher Geoffrey Smith could not get past the referees
for the Australian Dental Journal but was successful in numerous
international scientific journals.

Applied mathematician Dr. Mark Diesendorf had similar difficulty
in publishing his critiques of fluoridation in dental journals.
He made a major breakthrough with an article in Nature, a highly
prestigious scientific journal not controlled by the dental establishment
(Martin, 1991 ). Scientists critical of fluoridation also set
up their own journal, Fluoride.

Enlist patrons

Is there, somewhere, an open-minded mainstream scientist who
is willing to examine your ideas fairly and, if they appear to
have promise, help in ensuring that they obtain proper recognition?
Many challengers believe the answer must be yes and spend a lot
of effort trying to find this elusive scientist. Unfortunately,
most scientists are either too busy, not sufficiently intelligent
or open-minded to grasp the new idea, biased by prejudice or self-interest,
or have too much to lose by championing something unorthodox.
The most desirable patron of a challenger is someone who is fairly
senior, has excellent mainstream credentials and track record,
has plenty of spare time, and is willing to take risks on your
behalf. It is quite likely that there is no one who fits this
specification. But sometimes there is, so it pays to inquire.
By asking at a few universities for recommendations about open-minded
scientists in a certain field, you may well be directed to one
or two candidates.

Scientists who gain a public profile, especially those who
communicate to a general audience, are obvious targets. David
Suzuki, Paul Davies, and the late Carl Sagan are examples. They
are likely to be totally and utterly overwhelmed by people seeking
their help. It is probably better to seek someone who is known
in a specialty but less known to others.

A patron can be a great help. The main problem is that lots
of effort can be wasted seeking one when actually there is no
one out there.

Seek a different audience

Rather than seeking to obtain credibility among orthodox scientists,
another option is to seek a different audience. This might be
practitioners, those in a different field, or the general public.
For example, some investigators into "alternative health"
distribute leaflets to nutritionists and alternative therapists,
publish articles in popular health magazines, and give talks to
community groups. Some parapsychologists have obtained support
from industry, which has less hostility to the paranormal than
pure scientists.

The big advantage of this strategy is that it is possible to
sidestep the most obvious hostile interests. If the cancer establishment
is opposed to a treatment relying on a common substance, there
are a number of groups that may be more receptive, including some
patients and relatives, alternative therapists, and health food
stores. The strategy can have many ramifications: setting up journals,
newsletters, and conferences; establishing protocols and certification
procedures; seeking mass media coverage.

Seeking a different audience has risks too. It may lead to
an insular alternative community that cannot recognize its shortcomings
due to its own interests. It may lead to associations with bizarre
allies that serve to discredit what is sensible. It may make acceptance
by the mainstream more difficult.

Any challenging group that develops a significant audience
is a potential target for attack. Dissenters who have no following
are usually ignored. Dissenters with a mass audience are a threat
to the mainstream. This suggests that it is wise to develop a
solid foundation of research experience and results, organizations,
networks and activist skills before gaining too wide a public
profile.

Expose suppression of dissent

When attacks are made on dissenters and their work, the best
response is to expose the attacks and use them to gain wider attention
on the original work. Detailed documentation should be kept of
all attacks, and a careful, conservative, and absolutely accurate
account prepared and used to reveal the tactics of the other side.
However, it is a mistake to become preoccupied by the injustice
of attacks, for example by suing. Rather, the focus should always
be returned to the work in question and the need for a fair evaluation.

Dissenters need to be prepared for anything. In the course
of harassment, reprimands, transfers, dismissals and other such
actions, there can be unscrupulous behavior, including spreading
of lies, destruction of documents, blackmail of potential supporters,
and frame-ups. Most people can scarcely believe what happens to
whistle blowers, and indeed can scarcely believe it when it happens
to them! It is salutary to read some whistle blower stories (Dempster,
1997; Glazer & Glazer, 1989; Martin, 1997; Martin et al.,
1986; Nader, Petkas, & Blackwell, 1972) and study advice from
people who have dealt with whistle blower cases (Stewart, De vine,
& Ras or, 1989).

Build a social movement

If vested interests are stopping the expression or acceptance
of certain ideas, ultimately the only thing that will change this
is a change in society, including decision making and attitudes.
One way to help bring this about is through a social movement,
which can be thought of as a loose alliance of individuals and
groups pushing for a change in the way people do things. Conventional
examples are the environmental, feminist, peace, and anti-abortion
movements. Social movements normally challenge established interests;
a successful movement can become a vested interest, as in the
case of neo-liberalism. Some movements are not so obvious. For
example, computers did not appear by themselves: there was a strong
push to introduce them, which can be called a "computerization
movement" (Kling & Iacono 1988). Science was certainly
a social movement in its early years, challenging the religious
establishment.

Isolated dissenters can be suppressed easily; that is the fate
of most whistle blowers. A movement, in contrast, has a better
chance of gaining a hearing since it combines the skills and resources
of many like-minded people who are committed to a cause and who
can support each other. It is worthwhile for dissenters to contact
activist organizations that are related to their area. Many activists
have great skills in analyzing local power structures, mobilizing
support, and building campaigns (Co over et al., 198 1; Shaw, 1996).
Building a social movement is not a quick road to success but
in the long run it may offer the best prospect for challenging
vested interests.

The social system of science has forged enormously strong links
to governments and corporations and as well has developed vested
interests in education systems, career structures, and organizational
arrangements. Indeed, science itself can be seen as a social problem
(Restive 1988). Many aspects of the practice of science do not
live up to the high ideals of "science" as a dispassionate
search for truth. If there is any hope of reform, dissenters have
a crucial role to play. To be effective, they need to understand
that science is a system of power as well as knowledge, and that
consequently they need to be prepared for a power struggle as
well as a struggle over ideas.